Question Description
Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Pramod, a second hand car dealer, tells Shiv that he can get him a Ford Mustang at a throwaway price as he knows the showroom dealer of Mustang very well. Shiv agrees to that and pays the money to Pramod. As promised, Pramod delivers Mustang to Shiv. Later, Shiv realizes that the vehicle was stolen and he sues Pramod for fraud. Pramod takes the defence of buyer be aware and tells that he was not obligated to inform Shiv about it. Decide whether fraud is committed.a)Pramod is not liable for fraud.b)Pramod is liable for fraud.c)Shiv should have been cautious as a buyer.d)Shiv cannot sue Pramod as he was only a second hand dealer of cars.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Pramod, a second hand car dealer, tells Shiv that he can get him a Ford Mustang at a throwaway price as he knows the showroom dealer of Mustang very well. Shiv agrees to that and pays the money to Pramod. As promised, Pramod delivers Mustang to Shiv. Later, Shiv realizes that the vehicle was stolen and he sues Pramod for fraud. Pramod takes the defence of buyer be aware and tells that he was not obligated to inform Shiv about it. Decide whether fraud is committed.a)Pramod is not liable for fraud.b)Pramod is liable for fraud.c)Shiv should have been cautious as a buyer.d)Shiv cannot sue Pramod as he was only a second hand dealer of cars.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Pramod, a second hand car dealer, tells Shiv that he can get him a Ford Mustang at a throwaway price as he knows the showroom dealer of Mustang very well. Shiv agrees to that and pays the money to Pramod. As promised, Pramod delivers Mustang to Shiv. Later, Shiv realizes that the vehicle was stolen and he sues Pramod for fraud. Pramod takes the defence of buyer be aware and tells that he was not obligated to inform Shiv about it. Decide whether fraud is committed.a)Pramod is not liable for fraud.b)Pramod is liable for fraud.c)Shiv should have been cautious as a buyer.d)Shiv cannot sue Pramod as he was only a second hand dealer of cars.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Pramod, a second hand car dealer, tells Shiv that he can get him a Ford Mustang at a throwaway price as he knows the showroom dealer of Mustang very well. Shiv agrees to that and pays the money to Pramod. As promised, Pramod delivers Mustang to Shiv. Later, Shiv realizes that the vehicle was stolen and he sues Pramod for fraud. Pramod takes the defence of buyer be aware and tells that he was not obligated to inform Shiv about it. Decide whether fraud is committed.a)Pramod is not liable for fraud.b)Pramod is liable for fraud.c)Shiv should have been cautious as a buyer.d)Shiv cannot sue Pramod as he was only a second hand dealer of cars.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Pramod, a second hand car dealer, tells Shiv that he can get him a Ford Mustang at a throwaway price as he knows the showroom dealer of Mustang very well. Shiv agrees to that and pays the money to Pramod. As promised, Pramod delivers Mustang to Shiv. Later, Shiv realizes that the vehicle was stolen and he sues Pramod for fraud. Pramod takes the defence of buyer be aware and tells that he was not obligated to inform Shiv about it. Decide whether fraud is committed.a)Pramod is not liable for fraud.b)Pramod is liable for fraud.c)Shiv should have been cautious as a buyer.d)Shiv cannot sue Pramod as he was only a second hand dealer of cars.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Pramod, a second hand car dealer, tells Shiv that he can get him a Ford Mustang at a throwaway price as he knows the showroom dealer of Mustang very well. Shiv agrees to that and pays the money to Pramod. As promised, Pramod delivers Mustang to Shiv. Later, Shiv realizes that the vehicle was stolen and he sues Pramod for fraud. Pramod takes the defence of buyer be aware and tells that he was not obligated to inform Shiv about it. Decide whether fraud is committed.a)Pramod is not liable for fraud.b)Pramod is liable for fraud.c)Shiv should have been cautious as a buyer.d)Shiv cannot sue Pramod as he was only a second hand dealer of cars.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Pramod, a second hand car dealer, tells Shiv that he can get him a Ford Mustang at a throwaway price as he knows the showroom dealer of Mustang very well. Shiv agrees to that and pays the money to Pramod. As promised, Pramod delivers Mustang to Shiv. Later, Shiv realizes that the vehicle was stolen and he sues Pramod for fraud. Pramod takes the defence of buyer be aware and tells that he was not obligated to inform Shiv about it. Decide whether fraud is committed.a)Pramod is not liable for fraud.b)Pramod is liable for fraud.c)Shiv should have been cautious as a buyer.d)Shiv cannot sue Pramod as he was only a second hand dealer of cars.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Pramod, a second hand car dealer, tells Shiv that he can get him a Ford Mustang at a throwaway price as he knows the showroom dealer of Mustang very well. Shiv agrees to that and pays the money to Pramod. As promised, Pramod delivers Mustang to Shiv. Later, Shiv realizes that the vehicle was stolen and he sues Pramod for fraud. Pramod takes the defence of buyer be aware and tells that he was not obligated to inform Shiv about it. Decide whether fraud is committed.a)Pramod is not liable for fraud.b)Pramod is liable for fraud.c)Shiv should have been cautious as a buyer.d)Shiv cannot sue Pramod as he was only a second hand dealer of cars.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Read the information given below carefully and answer the following question.The question is based on the reasoning and arguments, or facts and principles set out in the passage. Some of these principles may not be true in the real or legal sense, yet you must conclusively assume that they are true for the purpose. Please answer the question on the basis of what is stated or implied in the passage. Do not rely on any principle of law other than the ones supplied to you, and do not assume any facts other than those supplied to you when answering the question. Please choose the option that most accurately and comprehensively answers the question.Fraud implies and involves any of the following acts committed by a contracting party or his connivance or his agent with the intention of deceiving or inciting another party or his agent to enter into the agreement. Mere silence as to facts likely to affect the willingness of a person to enter into a contract is not fraud, unless the circumstance of the case is such that, regard being had to them, it is the duty of the person keeping silence to speak, or unless his silence, in itself, is equivalent to speech.Section 17 of the Contract Act describes fraud and lists the acts that amount to fraud, which are a false claim, active concealment, promise without the intention of carrying it out, any other deceptive act, or any act declared fraudulent. To constitute fraud, the contracting party, or any other individual with his connivance, or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the agreement, should have performed such acts. The parties have no duty to speak about facts likely to affect the consent of the other party to the contract, and mere silence does not amount to fraud unless the circumstance of the case shows that there is a duty to speak or silence equivalent to speech.To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that representations made were false to the knowledge of the party making them. The statement must be false in substance and in fact. Positive knowledge of falsehood is not a criterion. In order to constitute fraud, it is necessary that the statement was made by the person concerned with knowledge of its falsehood, or without belief in its truth. Even mere ignorance as to the truth or falsehood of material assertion, which, however, turns out to be untrue, is deemed equivalent to the knowledge of its untruth, as also where the representor suspected that his statement might be inaccurate, or that he neglected to inquire into its accuracy.Q.Pramod, a second hand car dealer, tells Shiv that he can get him a Ford Mustang at a throwaway price as he knows the showroom dealer of Mustang very well. Shiv agrees to that and pays the money to Pramod. As promised, Pramod delivers Mustang to Shiv. Later, Shiv realizes that the vehicle was stolen and he sues Pramod for fraud. Pramod takes the defence of buyer be aware and tells that he was not obligated to inform Shiv about it. Decide whether fraud is committed.a)Pramod is not liable for fraud.b)Pramod is liable for fraud.c)Shiv should have been cautious as a buyer.d)Shiv cannot sue Pramod as he was only a second hand dealer of cars.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.